Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="broghammerj" data-source="post: 8848434" data-attributes="member: 1869">I got banned on another thread so I am trying to tread lightly.&nbsp; I also am not dismissing your feelings of offense.&nbsp; I accept that your perspective is valid.&nbsp; To me you have actually defined why race fits perfectly for the tropes of DnD elves, dwarves, etc.If you take common DnD tropes that dwarves look a certain way, short/stout/sturdy physique, resistant to poison, they have a culture around mining, live 400 years, form clans, worship a set pantheon of gods, dislike water, and are distrustful of outsiders.&nbsp; Dwarves are well defined as both a species and ethnicity.&nbsp; Dwarves have similar biological characteristics, can reproduce with one another, etc.&nbsp; They also have a similar cultural features I defined above. Based on your definition the term &quot;race&quot; works really well.&nbsp; I think that's why some people are having an issue with this change.&nbsp; I can't think of an English word that has both a definition of biology and culture that is a suitable replacement to race but doesn't have the real life historical baggage, hence the heated discussion.There are some historical aspects of race within DnD that are problematic like the term demi-human or subrace.&nbsp; Taken as &quot;smaller&quot; demi works fine.&nbsp; Taken as inferior and it stinks of racism.&nbsp; I can understand why someone doesn't like the term &quot;race&quot; due its historical use to dehumanize people of color.&nbsp; Obviously the biology difference on real humans was a false premise.&nbsp; That being said the word race based on definition is a technically appropriate albeit offensive to some.I always took humanoid to mean a group that walks upright on two legs like a human.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="broghammerj, post: 8848434, member: 1869"] I got banned on another thread so I am trying to tread lightly. I also am not dismissing your feelings of offense. I accept that your perspective is valid. To me you have actually defined why race fits perfectly for the tropes of DnD elves, dwarves, etc. If you take common DnD tropes that dwarves look a certain way, short/stout/sturdy physique, resistant to poison, they have a culture around mining, live 400 years, form clans, worship a set pantheon of gods, dislike water, and are distrustful of outsiders. Dwarves are well defined as both a species and ethnicity. Dwarves have similar biological characteristics, can reproduce with one another, etc. They also have a similar cultural features I defined above. Based on your definition the term "race" works really well. I think that's why some people are having an issue with this change. [B]I can't think of an English word that has both a definition of biology and culture that is a suitable replacement to race but doesn't have the real life historical baggage, hence the heated discussion.[/B] There are some historical aspects of race within DnD that are problematic like the term demi-human or subrace. Taken as "smaller" demi works fine. Taken as inferior and it stinks of racism. I can understand why someone doesn't like the term "race" due its historical use to dehumanize people of color. Obviously the biology difference on real humans was a false premise. That being said the word race based on definition is a technically appropriate albeit offensive to some. I always took humanoid to mean a group that walks upright on two legs like a human. [/QUOTE]

Verification